1. Where
the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or
involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard
of review. Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194
W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

2. In
the absence of any definition of the intended meaning of words or terms used
in a legislative enactment, they will, in the interpretation of the act, be given
their common, ordinary and accepted meaning in the connection in which they are
used. Syllabus Point 1, Miners in General Group v. Hix, 123 W.Va.
637, 17 S.E.2d 810 (1941).

3. In
an annexation proceeding initiated by a municipality by petition under W.Va.
Code, 8-6-2(a) [2001], an accurate survey map is a map reflecting
the course and distance measurements, boundaries, and contents of the territory
that is proposed to be incorporated into the municipality's limits. The map must
reach the desired level of precision consistent with the purposes of the survey,
namely to provide notice to residents and freeholders of the municipality and
the territory encompassed by the annexation petition of a potential change regarding
who will vote in municipal elections; taxation and revenues; and the provision
of services.

Starcher, J.:

In this
appeal from the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, we are asked to review a
circuit court order permanently enjoining a municipality from going forward with
an annexation proceeding pursuant to an annexation petition. The circuit court
found that a map of the territory to be annexed that was attached to the petition
was not an accurate survey map as required by W.Va. Code,
8-6-2(a) [2001], because no physical, on-the-ground survey was conducted of the
territory. Because the map was prepared using previously- conducted surveys,
property descriptions contained in publicly-filed deeds, and other documents,
the circuit court determined that the annexation petition was fatally flawed.

As set
forth below, we reverse the circuit court's injunction order.

I.

Facts & Background

On January
15, 2003, the appellant City of White Sulphur Springs began proceedings to annex
adjacent, unincorporated land into the City's boundaries. Using the procedure
set forth in W.Va. Code, 8-6-2 [2001], (See
footnote 1) a petition was filed with the City

.
. . setting forth the change proposed in the metes and bounds of the municipality
and asking that a vote be taken upon the proposed change. The petition shall
be verified and shall be
accompanied by an accurate survey map showing the territory to be annexed to
the corporate limits by the proposed change.

W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a). The metes and bounds description in the petition
of the territory to be annexed, and the map of the territory accompanying the
petition, were prepared by a registered professional engineer using the calls
and distances culled from preexisting surveys, public records and from the
deeds describing the boundaries of the various properties in the area to be
annexed. These deeds were recorded by the property owners with the Greenbrier
County Clerk. No on-the-ground examination or measurement of the proposed new
City boundary lines was made.

A significant
facility in the territory to be annexed is The Greenbrier Resort. The owners
of The Greenbrier and other affiliated properties _ who are the appellees and
plaintiffs below _ did not wish the territory to be annexed, and filed suit against
the City to enjoin the annexation process. (See
footnote 2)

One of
the grounds upon which the appellees sought an injunction was that the City had
not performed an actual, on-the-ground survey of their property and the other
properties encompassed by the annexation petition, and had therefore not prepared
an accurate survey map of the territory to be annexed into the City.
The City, however, took the position that as long as the map of the territory
to be annexed was reasonably accurate, and residents and landowners could determine
whether they or their properties were affected
by the annexation, then the map was an accurate survey map that
complied with W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a). (See
footnote 3)

Early
in the litigation, comments by the circuit court indicated the court's belief
that W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a) required a detailed, physical, on-the-ground
survey. Therefore, before engaging in protracted, expensive litigation over the
factual accuracy of the description and map of the territory to be annexed, the
parties agreed to submit to the circuit court the narrow legal question of whether
an on-the-ground survey was required or not.

On February
9, 2004, the circuit court entered a Final Order Granting Permanent Injunction against
the City. Applying several dictionary meanings, the circuit court found, as a
matter of law, that the City's annexation petition was not accompanied by an accurate
survey map as required by W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a) because the map was
not accurate and free from error or defect . . . careful or
meticulous; and was not a survey because it did not involve the
process by which a parcel of land is measured and its boundaries and contents
ascertained. The circuit court found the City's January 15, 2003
petition for annexation to be fatally flawed, and permanently enjoined
the City from taking any action pursuant to the petition.

The City
now appeals the circuit court's February 9, 2004 order.

II.

Standard of Review

Where
the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or
involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard
of review. Syllabus Point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194
W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

III.

Discussion

The appellant
City challenges the circuit court's interpretation of the phrase accurate
survey map in W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a). The appellant argues that the
statute requires the production of a reasonably accurate map so as to permit
residents and landowners, of the municipality and of the territory to be annexed,
to quickly determine whether they are or are not affected by an annexation petition.
The appellant also argues that the annexation survey map need only be accurate
enough to determine which properties are within the City's boundaries for purposes
of voting, taxation, and the provision of services. The appellant takes the position
that the statute does not require the production of a precise, on-the-ground
survey sufficient to resolve boundary disputes between property owners. The
appellant contends that a map prepared using previously prepared surveys or
using property descriptions contained in other documents, such as the publicly-filed
deeds to the land being annexed, are sufficient.

The appellees
counter that the Legislature chose the phrase accurate survey map to
indicate the map had to be (1) precise and (2) prepared from measurements done
in an actual survey performed by a person qualified to perform surveys. The appellees
argue that W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a) must be read in conjunction with the statutes
pertaining to the licensing and practice of land surveyors, W.Va. Code,
30-13A-1 to -37 [2004], which direct that all survey maps must be
prepared by a licensed land surveyor in a manner conforming to specific technical
standards.

We can
find no definition of accurate survey map in W.Va. Code, 8-6-2,
or any other portion of the Code pertaining to the annexation process. [W]here
there is some ambiguity in the statute or some uncertainty as to the meaning
intended . . . resort may be had to rules of construction of statutes. Crockett
v. Andrews, 153 W.Va. 714, 718, 172 S.E.2d 384, 386-87 (1970) (quoting 17
M.J., Statutes, § 31). In the absence of any definition of the intended
meaning of words or terms used in a legislative enactment, they will, in the
interpretation of the act, be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning
in the connection in which they are used. Syllabus Point 1, Miners in
General Group v. Hix, 123 W.Va. 637, 17 S.E.2d 810 (1941). In accord,
Syllabus Point 6, State ex rel. Cohen v.
Manchin, 175 W.Va. 525, 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984) (Undefined words and
terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary
and accepted meaning.)

Black's
Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) defines a survey as
a process by which a parcel of land is measured and its boundaries and
contents ascertained; also a map, plat, or statement of the result of such survey,
with the courses and distances and the quantity of the land. Nowhere in
the definition of survey do we find that a survey is exclusively
a process by which land is physically measured on the ground and
boundaries established by direct observation. Instead, it is merely any process
by which an area of land is measured, and its boundary determined _ even if done
by indirect means.

The appellees
contend that, in order for the measurement of land boundaries to be accurate,
the measurement must be done by some physical examination of the land. The appellees
contend _ again referring to the various statutory requirements regulating the
profession of land surveying _ that a proper, accurate survey is one that establishes
boundary monuments, and clearly measures distances and angles using conventional
survey equipment or using global positioning system equipment.

The City,
however, asserts that the direct-observation survey methods proposed by the appellees
would be cost prohibitive, making the annexation process nearly impossible for
most municipalities. Furthermore, because of the size of the tracts of land owned
by the appellees _ apparently encompassing several thousand acres _ a physical,
on-the-ground survey would be highly impractical. That impracticability becomes
even more apparent,
according to the City, because a physical survey of the boundaries of the appellees'
tracts would require a surveyor to trespass onto the appellees' lands. Finally,
the City contends that while such a survey would result in a detailed report
sufficient to resolve boundary disputes between property owners, such elegant
detail is not necessary for purposes of putting the citizenry on notice regarding
who will be impacted by the annexation.

The appellants
argue that the measurement and determination of land boundaries can be accurately
accomplished for purposes of annexation by compiling the distances and courses
contained in preexisting surveys, in the boundary descriptions within the deeds
of the properties that are to be annexed into a municipality, or in other records.
We agree.

While
we do not believe that the statutes pertaining to the licensing and practice
of land surveyors are controlling on the issue of annexation, (See
footnote 4) the language contained within those statutes guides us
in accepting the correctness of the appellant's argument.

For example, W.Va.
Code, 30-13A-3(hh) [2004] defines the practice of land surveying as including
the act of determining the configuration or contour of the Earth's surface, or
the position of fixed objects thereon, using such sciences as . . .
photogrammetry, (See footnote
5) and . . . making geometric measurements and gathering related
information pertaining to the physical or legal features of the earth, improvements
on the earth, the space above, on or below the earth[.] In other words,
it appears that even licensed land surveyors may determine a point, line, object
or area on the surface of the Earth by using geometric measurements taken from
sources other than direct, physical, on-the-ground observations. The statute
recognizes those sources can include aerial photography, or sources identifying improvements and legal
features of the earth.

Furthermore,
the circuit court concluded that an accurate survey is one which
is free from error or defect . . . precise; careful or meticulous. However, W.Va.
Code, 30- 13A-26(g) [2004] _ which sets forth minimum technical criteria governing
surveys of property boundaries _ states that while distance must be reported
in feet or meters, or parts thereof, and angles or directions reported
in degrees or parts thereof, these observations must only be measured
to a precision that will produce the desired level of accuracy. Further,
the quantity or area of land within the boundary must only be measured
and reported to a precision consistent with the purpose of the survey. In
sum, even a boundary survey of a single tract of land by a licensed land surveyor
need not be precise and free from any error or defect; such a survey must only
reach the desired level of accuracy consistent with the purposes of the survey.

We
therefore hold that in an annexation proceeding initiated by a municipality under W.Va.
Code, 8-6-2(a), an accurate survey map is a map reflecting the
course and distance measurements, boundaries, and contents of the territory that
is proposed to be incorporated into the municipality's limits. The map must reach
the desired level of precision consistent with the purposes of the survey, namely
to provide notice to residents and freeholders of the municipality and the territory
encompassed by the annexation petition of a potential change regarding who will
vote in municipal elections; taxation and revenues; and the provision of services.

We believe
that the circuit court erred by concluding that the survey map attached to the
City's annexation petition, as a matter of law, was required to be absolutely
free from error or defect and could not be assembled from preexisting surveys
or boundary descriptions contained in deeds filed with the county clerk. (See
footnote 6) A municipality may prepare an annexation survey map by
whatever means it chooses, so long as the map is of reasonable
accuracy such that residents and landowners in the City and in the territory
to be annexed can easily understand which parcels of land are being incorporated
into the City's boundaries.

IV.

Conclusion

The circuit
court's February 9, 2004 order granting an injunction is reversed, and the case
is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Reversed
and Remanded.

The statute was amended
in 2003; no changes were made affecting this appeal.
Footnote: 2

Three lawsuits were filed
in the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County; a fourth was filed by the Greenbrier
Clinic in federal court.
Footnote: 3

The appellants point out
that the appellees do not _ and cannot _ contend that they did not know whether
their property was encompassed within the territory to be annexed, because
the annexation petition specifically identifies the appellees' property as
the territory being annexed. The petition states:
The
popular name for this territory to be annexed is the business district from approximately
an area on U.S. Route 60 known as Pines Curve just West of the Harts Run interchange
of Interstate 64 to the current corporate limits of White Sulphur Springs, and
all land currently or formerly owned by The Greenbrier Sporting Club and CSX
Hotels, Inc. d/b/a The Greenbrier Resort, as well as their related companies.
Footnote: 4

This is because the statutes
specifically exempt from regulation and licensing any person working for a
municipality. W.Va. Code, 30-13A-36(a)(2) [2004] exempts from regulation
and licensing [a]ny employee or officer of the United States, this state
or any political subdivision thereof, or their agents, when such employee is
engaged in the practice of land surveying exclusively for such governmental
unit.
Footnote: 5

W.Va. Code, 30-13A-3(z)
[2004] states that '[p]hotogrammetry' means the use of aerial photography,
other imagery and surveying principles to prepare scaled maps or other survey
products reflecting the contours, features and fixed works of the earth's surface.
Footnote: 6

The circuit court also
found that the map and description attached to the annexation petition was grossly
inaccurate because the metes and bounds description had numerous closure errors
of gaps and overlaps. The appellees assert that the original annexation petition
had a closure error of 2,204.16 feet; they assert a corrected petition
had a closure error of 950.93 feet, altering the impact of the petition on
some 130 acres. The City disputes these numbers, and asserts that the closure
error is only three feet.
The City raises as a second point of error
that the circuit court should not have accepted the testimony by the appellees'
expert, to the effect that the City's map and description were inaccurate. We
decline to consider this factual point of error because we are able to resolve
the appeal on a purely legal question. On remand, the circuit court should endeavor
to consider the parties' factual positions, and determine whether the map and
description of the parcel to be annexed are sufficiently accurate for purposes
of W.Va. Code, 8-6-2(a).